Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Orazio Gentileschi - Il suonatore di liuto (National Gallery of Art).jpg

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Orazio Gentileschi - The Lute Player

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 21:07:31 (UTC)

 
Original The lute player is depicted probably while tuning her instrument, before a concert. The textures and the surfaces are painted with careful precision. The dramatic lighting with sharp contrasts between the light and the shadows makes the figure pronounced and eye-catching an gives an intriguing atmosphere to the painting. It is hosted by the National Gallery of Art, USA.
Reason
EV, lead picture in four articles, a good scan - The Lute Player (Orazio Gentileschi)‎ is a Baroque painting from 1626 by Italian painter Orazio Gentileschi. The painting depicts a woman playing the lute. Orazio Gentileschi is know for being a talented painter and for being the father of an even more famous painter, her daughter, Artemisia Gentileschi. Orazio Gentileschi had a more refined, subtle and softer, less dramatic style than his daughter. (The painting possibly depicts Francesca Caccini, a famous Italian composer, singer, lutenist, and poet of the early Baroque era, who is know for being the first woman who ever wrote an opera. Looks like this information has so far no reliable sources)
Articles in which this image appears
The Lute Player (Orazio Gentileschi), (own article) ‎Orazio Gentileschi, Andrea Salvadori, Francesca Caccini, Kirtle, Lute
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Orazio Gentileschi
  • Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - Assuming the article can be finished in time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I commented, it was still in user space. Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption from sock puppet of a blocked editor.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is your source for your assertion that the sitter is Francesca Caccini? You made this assertion at Francesca Caccini a few days ago without providing a source, and then at your article start citing the NGA, but that source makes no mention of Caccini. A search on the internet gives no sources, though it's true that Caccini was a friend of Artemisia. Presumably an outstanding Wikipedia editor of your status pays some attention to WP:VERIFY (or perhaps there comes a point where the elite don't have to?). Would you care to enlighten us lesser folk, or failing that explain yourself? Thank you.138.199.74.80 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can leave out the character slurs if you genuinely want an answer; do it again and I'll smack your hand with a ruler; you might think I don't know who you are, but that just means you'll have to live in fear, never knowing when I might strike. Belle (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouph ... I'm almost tempted not to strike out. Apologies. But it is frustrating, and it's not as if this is the first time this sort of thing has happened in this group. An editor has now come on to the article (perhaps you know her too?) to clean up. But there are still issues. It's not my period at all, but a single glance suffices to show this a very non-Caraveggio like painting: it's just the subject which was the influence. What's the betting we don't soon have a DYK about Caccini being the sitter here? The editor does need to show good faith and explain himself. Look at the next "support", where it's simply accepted despite this comment. To repeat there is no evidence that Caccini was the sitter, nor is it suggested anywhere in the sources that can be gleaned from the web (and a major one is the Judith W. Mann source I copied over from Orazio Gentileschi: that's available in full with just this painting as its bookcover where Caccini is mentioned not once). And the assertion was made with a citation that didn't verify. I've seen it said by purist content creators that that is THE cardinal sin in Wikipedia, worse even than being a sock (ugh the nasty, smelly things). 138.199.74.80 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have traced the origin of the attribution to the Dutch wikipedia here. As I pointed out on the Talk page of the article it was queried on the internet here. Can we now have Hafspajen's explanation please? As a matter of good faith he needs to provide one. 138.199.74.80 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean I don't want to embarrass Hafspajen. He's obviously proud of what he's achieved to reach Master Editor status and he's acquired a devoted following who won't hold a lapse against him. I'm content that what goes on in Featured Pictures stays in Featured Pictures. But there is an issue here, a basic one of WP:VERIFY and I would say of integrity as well. The suspicion (I'm not saying that it is the case, but it is a suspicion that arises) has to be that Hafs deliberately misrepresented this image as a portrait of Francesca Caccini. He needs to explain himself. Was he taking that Dutch article on good faith? Well then, he should say so and explain why. But he has to show good faith here. He has to step forward and his fellows have to show good faith as well and not protect him. If Hafs doesn't explain himself then I think I'm justified in taking it to his Talk page and putting it on his record. And incidentally, something should be done about editing this nomination to get rid of the entirely spurious Caccini attribution. Hafs should be doing something about that as well. 138.199.71.195 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we get your point and it is a valid one; give Hafs time to respond; we don't need the issue reiterated just to allow you a few sly digs [dons ninja gear; sharpens ruler (yes, you read it right: "sharpens ruler")] Belle (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but my initiating IP was blocked by the administrator here, so you will forgive me I'm sure if I suspected a cover-up. And there's a fine line between a humorous threat and a real threat, Belle,and I think most would agree you just crossed it with your post. Cross back and stay back. My offer stands: we can sort this here once and for all ('cos we too want our place in the sun) or it's going onto his Talk page and onto his record sheet. I'll look in tomorrow. Hafs has to respond. He can't just walk away from these situations and seek the protection of administrators. 138.199.71.195 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think most would agree you just crossed it with your post"; how silly; are you really shaking in fear imagining me somehow creeping around the Internet dressed as a ninja with a sharpened ruler ready to smack you on the hand? Just so you know: I'm not really going to do that. Your query is good but the histrionics are rather a turn-off. Belle (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's silly and it's scarcely histrionic, at least not by the standards indulged by at least one member of this group I know of. I ask you to indulge me however distasteful you find it, equally newbies (whatever your evident suspicions may be). Is Hafs going to respond here? I'm making a generous offer: basically have me inside pissing out of his tent rather than outside pissing into it. What say you Hafs? All I want is some sort of assurance that you'll admit your mistakes when you make them and accept criticism in a constructive sort of way. I've found the origin of this BTW. Caccini's music is still played today and her CDs are often illustrated by this painting. Easy mistake to make. One good thing to come out of this is that I actually listened to some of her music. This is her chaconne. One rather can't manage Johann's oneself, but I might download Francesca and have a go. This is an absolutely gorgeous performance of Bertali's. 138.199.77.183 (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sharp clear image of a noted musician. The caption itself needs a little tidying up for spellchecking-'father' for 'fater','and' for 'an' and would 'musicians' be preferable to 'musicants'(I'm not familiar with that word).And as for Belle lurking about waiting to strike,was she doing it the other night? SOMETHING was rustling about behind the dustbins.I assumed it was next door's cat.I'm keeping a wary eye on that hedge now... Lemon martini (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The cat's my sidekick. You're on my list, Lemon martini, you're on my list. Belle (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- DreamSparrow Chat 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Yann (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Not a portrait of Francesca Caccini. Ayesha23 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An absolutely stunning painting, my compliments to the uploader for providing such a quality image. My objection is not to the image, but to the attribution of the sitter as Francesca Caccini. There is a serious dispute over this attribution at Talk:The Lute Player (Orazio Gentileschi) and our article on Caccini outright states "there is no evidence that Caccini was the sitter in this portrait." The National Gallery of Art does not identify the sitter on on its page for the painting nor in this video on the painting. The sitter is not identified in this 2001 exhibition catalogue from the Metropolitan Museum of Art nor in any other book I could find with a cursory search. If we are going to definitely identify the sitter in Wikipedia's voice it should be properly sourced or the claim removed before it is promoted as one of Wikipedia's best examples of quality content, as it should be once this issue is settled. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the Portal:Opera can give anyone interested the references and books they based the DYK on: |Portal:Opera/DYK/7, or maybe Voceditenore who wrote our DYK and used the picture there Template:Did you know nominations/Andrea Salvadori [1] can explain it why. It has to be some reason why all interwiki articles on her use this painting, also music note covers and videos. And it is still not a reason to oppose, because we judge the painting, made by Orazio Gentileschi, and if there is no evidence that the depicted person is Francesca Caccini, then we simply state that she might be (for whatever reason they use this picture everywhere) or she is probably not. The painting is called the The Lute Player - and it might or might not depict Francesca Caccini, that's not a crucial point here. There are many artworks that are titled simply "Portrait of a man" or "Portrait of a woman". We don't know for sure who Mona Lisa was either, for example, that doesn't mean the painting is not good. Judging a FP is more about composition, colours, scan quality and such, and is that is what matters. Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Got the idea" is not quite what we're about. You cited the National Gallery of Art in your various preparatory edits on Wikipedia and Commons, but they make no mention of Caccini. In your edit above you say possibly depicts, but that needs citing too if it is not to be just your original research, "your idea". I don't believe it's ever been suggested the young lady is Caccini. The very idea that this allegory depicting a young woman with her bodice loosed, suggesting matters amorous as well as musical, an eons-old alliance, is a portrait of anyone is completely ludicrous. Of course no one of the age sitting for Gentileschi would have allowed herself to be depicted in such a fashion. I'm not withdrawing my oppose in the circumstances. Ayesha23 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the information about Francesca Caccini was in the lead, and it come from several other places on Wikipedia, identifying Caccini with this picture. The lead doesn't need sources. The source from the NGA was supporting the fact that the painting was one of Orazio Gentileschi's most famous paintings, that information was removed and tagged... About the speculation on her dress .... Oratio was painting plain nudes in abundance. Hafspajen (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, I absolutely agree. That's very well put. I should be happy to withdraw my "oppose" if the nomination is edited to remove the statement that Caccini was the sitter. The painting has educational value in its own right, but as it stands it would be a travesty to let the nomination of this very famous painting go forward. I would be happy to provide an edit if the nominating editor doesn't object, but obviously I can't do that without their consent. Ayesha23 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see The Lute Player (Orazio Gentileschi) itself needs attention. I'll edit there today and look back here in the evening. Ayesha23 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed because we don't know who the sitter is, I'm opposed if we identify her as definitely one person when we're not sure or it is unsourced. Since that issue is resolved, I support promotion. Gamaliel (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have hoped you were addressing the whole group. You don't think my oppose is worth addressing? Plainly not the blocked IP, who nevertheless raised this issue and without whose input Gamaliel, an administrator, presumably would not have made his comment, so that this nomination would have gone forward in Wikipedia's voice as a portrait of Francesca Caccini. First of all the Wikipedia and Commons edits identifying her were made by you, either unsourced or citing the NGA, which nevertheless makes no mention of Caccini. Caccini's music is still performed today and of necessity her CDs need illustrating with some image. It just so happens that Gentileschi's painting is one of several used. Google Francesca Caccini and you will see several examples of other paintings in the Google info-box. It's just eye-candy. No one is suggesting this painting is a portrait of Francesca Caccini. Give me one citation to an good reliable source (a museum, gallery, art crtic or book) that raises the issue and I'll be happy to withdraw my oppose and edit at the article accordingly. Until then you can argue any which way you like, but this suggestion of Caccini is original research of yours and should not appear in Wikipedia's voice.
On the general issue here, the situation seems to arise because the article was tailor-made for the nomination. I notice Chris raised the issue of the article not being ready. In future I suggest an article should have been in place for some time to give others an opportunity to edit at it (for example, I have yet to complete my own edits at the article). I don't see how the educational value of an image can be assessed if the article is incomplete or contains obvious errors of fact. Ayesha23 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and Voceditenore about details and drop the stick. Hafspajen (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are away until September 3rd. Out of curiosity I shall then. Are you saying you made your edits on their say-so without knowing their source? There's no stick here. Frankly, I'm not too bothered by the issue. As it stands the nomination will go forward with your curiously emphatic remark about Caccini. As Gamaliel points out it's no longer directly attributed to Caccini and with luck will stay out of the search engines. I shall clarify on the Talk page and I'll keep a wary eye on any new edits in article space attributing Caccini. Job done. Ayesha23 (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ayesha23 and Hafspajen, just checking in quickly re your message on my talk page and pings. When I added the image of Caccini to Andrea Salvadori in 2011, I was simply going by the documentation on the image at that time and the article Francesca Caccini (which I didn't write) and took it at face value. I'm afraid I can't shed further light on who the actual sitter is or how it came to be attributed as a portrait of Caccini. Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Voceditenore. Thank you very much for responding so quickly. We should be able to sort all this now before closing date 12 August. That file you uploaded 22 September 2013 is indeed very unfortunate and I shall move to have it deleted at Commons. It's a very low-resolution reverse image of the painting. I suspect it's a scan from one of the CDs I mention. When you uploaded it, its description field attributed it to Caccini, but that was edited out on 12 May 2014. Unfortunately it's not easy to edit titles at Commons and this one "File:Ritratto di francesca caccini.png" was left. On 2 August last, Hafspajen replaced it in the article by Orazio Gentileschi - Il suonatore di liuto (National Gallery of Art).jpg adding "Francesca Caccini" to the description field without citation and you have the source of all our present trouble.
We are all experts and enthusiasts here accustomed to appraising works of art. A brief inspection of this painting suffices to show it cannot possibly be a portrait because of the loosed bodice issue I mention above. There is no educational value at all in furthering this myth that it is, even possibly, a portrait of Francesca Caccini. I invite Hafspajen finally to edit that out. While he's at it, he might also like to consider his assertion that Orazio's daughter is a yet more famous painter than the father. I don't go far all this "famous" stuff in art-icles, but I do know that The Lute Player is an exceptionally popular painting and a great favourite at the NGA. We open ourselves to ridicule appraising it as we are now. I have good to reason to suspect it has already caught the eye of a senior curator at one of the world's most prestigious art museums. Time to wrap this up and edit for another day. Really. Thank you again, Voceditenore. I glanced through your article. I thought it excellent. Ayesha23 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what you said here except for the bit about Artemisia Gentileschi, who is definitely far more famous than her father today. Gamaliel (talk)
(edit conflict) Yes, true, Artemisia Gentileschi is definitely far more famous than her father. As for the picture, if you so called want to find the " source of all our present trouble" -it would be nice if you stopped blaming me all the time, I am affraid that the so called trouble is rather made big. I found the picture in the commons category Francesca Caccini and it was mentioned as Francesca Caccini several places on Wikipedia. It had both a commons category and several DYKs mentioning it as Francesca Caccini. The painting was put in the category Francesca Caccini by [an other common user] called User:Trzęsacz, not me. It was also mentioned on several places on several DYKs by trusted editors as Voceditenore and Gerda Arendt as Francesca Caccini. In this case several editors have made the same claim. Maybe it is not Francesca Caccini, maybe we all made a mistake, or maybe not. We don't know so far for sure. It doesn't matter who she is as long as we don't pretend we know for sure. It seems to be just a convention to use that picture in association with her. It is also used in music note covers and videos, and habitually used several online biographies, like here, Music Academy online. Hafspajen (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamaliel, I just blocked Ayesha as yet another sock of Coat of Many Colours. Consider removing/striking their remarks. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ban evasion aside, they seemed to be pointing out a pretty widespread pattern of wikipedia sourcing ouroboros, I think striking that would just be ignoring the larger issue here. There's no need to cut off the nose to spite the face, right? Parabolist (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block evasion, not ban evasion. What needs to be struck is the blocked user's verbosity; they love to see their own words on a screen. Feel free to tackle whatever issue they raised. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parabolist, the problematic content in the article has already been removed, and has been reworded here. If you are concerned about a "widespread pattern of wikipedia sourcing ouroboros" (I prefer the term citogenesis, but that's just me), this is not the proper forum. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said or claimed I was perfect, first of all. This user all by themselves suddenly puts the extreme high standard of the absolute necessity of being perfect and faultless on me and then gets upset when I am not perfect. I never ever claimed such things. I don't claim that the sitter IS Francesca either, if anyone care to read the discussion above, there is a reasonable amount of doubt about it. Also this user calling me an idiot and the rest of the various name-callings on different off-Wiki sites about Wikipedia editors is kinda low. I wish to have no contact with them or their socks in the future. Hafspajen (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Orazio Gentileschi - Il suonatore di liuto (National Gallery of Art).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Orazio_Gentileschi_-_Il_suonatore_di_liuto_(National_Gallery_of_Art).jpg&oldid=1138501733"